You are here

The myth of the untrained fighter?

The other day, as I am sometimes want to do, I decided to look up my old kung fu school on google. I received incredible training at this school from some impressive martial artists. According to my experience, the training was oriented entirely around practicality, addressing both self-defense situations and fighting on the street. I mention this, because I don't want anyone to assume I am trying to criticize or delegitimize the school. I am not. It is one of the best schools in which I have ever trained, and it is a scientific and highly effective system. During my investigation I found a section of a DVD produced by the larger organization, titled something to the effect of "[Kung fu style] for real world self-defense." The DVD featured the Grand Master, under whom I have attended seminars and consider to be a great teacher himself, demonstrating different responses to various attacks one might hypothetically encounter on the street. The section of the DVD I watched supposed that the assailant was trained in Choy lee fut and threw some sort of gnarly punch that a Choy lee fut practitioner might throw.

In Mr. Abernethy's podcast yesterday, and in a number of other sources I have read, ancient masters make the claim that karate is designed for use against untrained assailants. Many groups with which I have trained make a similar assumption, that your attacker is going to be a blindly belligerent brute, not a student of fighting methods.

All of this alerts me to a certain reality about the modern day. With the popularity of martial arts training, including high school and college wrestling and boxing, and the ubiquity of martial arts entertainment, be it movies and television or UFC, what is the chance that a given attacker has had zero exposure to martial technique or strategy? More importantly, what is the chance that they have received meaningful instruction in the martial arts in some way?

Initially I felt training against a choy lee fut attack waisted time and to call it "practical" was absurd. However, it does reflect the growing presence of the martial arts, a presence that may force students to redefine or refocus their traing goals in the future.

How do you account for the possibility of encountering trained assailants? Do you even feel such practice is valuable? Thoughts?

You shouldn't need different stuff for a trained attacker vs untrained, only different priorities. Usually a truly 'trained' attacker scenario is one of mutual engagement...and if it's not, well, a muay thai mugging probably isn't much differnet from a normal mugging.

The more naïve part of me hopes that this scenario will never occur since along with learning physical skills, the martial artist should also be developing disciplin and a desire to not seek out violence or indeed use their skills in a negative way.

Then there's the notion that you should never underestimate your attacker so you're almost safer assuming that they are highly trained and acting accordingly.

I think it's very easy to fall into a "sparring" type response, which of course is quite inappropriate. Yes, remember your objectives and keep to them. If your goal is making an escape route available and using it then that should be your goal regardless of the skill level of your attacker.

Finally, learn mutiple skill sets. If you have a striking-only background, seek out grappling skills and vice versa.

An attack is an attack whether or not your assailant is trained or untrained. All training does is give them a sense of formality, after that its no different.

Only issue I got is DON'T go to the ground no matter what if you can help it. A Grappler always says XX% of fights go to the ground. Well the proof in the pudding is the eating and reading many articles by "PROVEN" Self-defence Guru's its no more than around 40% = Less than 1/2 of the figure quoted by grapplers.

Learn Grappling, this will help you prevent being taken to the ground but dont base you whole arsenal on it as when you on the ground you'll get kicked in the head by their mates!!!

Thanks for the post; which I feel draws out at lot of the key point surrounding this issue.

Drew Loto wrote:

In Mr. Abernethy's podcast yesterday, and in a number of other sources I have read, ancient masters make the claim that karate is designed for use against untrained assailants. Many groups with which I have trained make a similar assumption, that your attacker is going to be a blindly belligerent brute, not a student of fighting methods.

Does my dad do a podcast?! Oh wait … you mean me ;-)

The assumption that “untrained” = “unskilled” is a very common one in the martial arts world. It’s not right in my view though.

To understand “untrained”, we need to define “trained”. And to do that the first question we should ask is “trained for what”? An Olympic level judoka would be “untrained” when it came to a low level amateur boxing match; because their training is for something else. The judoka is still highly skilled at what they do though; even if they are not prepared for another combative context or environment because they have never trained for it (i.e. from a boxing perspective they are "untrained")

Likewise, your career criminal / person with violent proclivities does not need martial arts / combat sport training to be extremely skilled in their own environment. They are “untrained” from a martial arts / combat sports / consensual fighting perspective; but their experience in the context we are discussing (crime and violence) makes them far more skilled than the allegedly more sophisticated martial artist whose expertise derives from another area and who lacks that experience.

I think it’s insular thinking (perhaps even a tinge of institutional arrogance?) that we martial arts types are prone to thinking that those untrained in what we do are less skilled that us even when we are entering the environment in which they are far more experienced. Criminals and the violent can experience crime and violence on an almost daily basis. The law-abiding and the well-balanced will have nowhere near that level of experience and that always needs to be kept in mind.

Drew Loto wrote:

All of this alerts me to a certain reality about the modern day. With the popularity of martial arts training, including high school and college wrestling and boxing, and the ubiquity of martial arts entertainment, be it movies and television or UFC, what is the chance that a given attacker has had zero exposure to martial technique or strategy? More importantly, what is the chance that they have received meaningful instruction in the martial arts in some way?

The experienced criminal and those with lots of experience of civilian violence will know what is most effective in that environment. They are highly unlikely to use the methods of martial arts / combat sports / consensual fighting when there are far more effective ways to achieve their objectives. Even if they have boxing skills, why stand there and box when they could use weapons, attack in a group, take you unaware, etc? The environment is also far more “emotional” and even world level boxers don’t fight like boxers when they really mean it (as the countless examples from press conference brawls shows). We need raw and brutal simplicity and the complexity and sophistication that can be useful in a consensual fight is inappropriate when the context changes. If we expect a self-protection situation to be exactly like a consensual fight / duel we are sure to be surprised. The experience of the criminally violent ensures they know what is what and that makes them far less likely to confuse contexts as martial artists / combat athletes are prone to do.

In summary, I would say the key thing is always to be mindful of the nature / requirements of any given context and to be sure not to automatically equate “untrained” (for one context) with “unskilled” (with regards to another context).

All very important I feel and I hope the above is some use in explaining my thinking on this. Thanks for raising the issue Drew!

In summary, I would say the key thing is always to be mindful of the nature / requirements of any given context and to be sure not to automatically equate “untrained” (for one context) with “unskilled” (with regards to another context).

I think this point of Iain's is very important. The two terms are very different. In similar vein, as I have argued elsewhere on this forum, when we talk about 'trained' we should consider what a person is trained for, as while training can be very useful, not all training applies equally well in all situations. I believe for example that the training I offer serves people very well against sudden unexpected street violence, but is ill suited against the probing guarded attacks of a professional ring fighter. That may sound a bit trite, but hopefully this explains what I'm talking about - useful for learning about street violence, of no use for training to fight a competition:

This does of course bring me back to Drew's question. It is likely that almost anyone engaging in 'real' violence, whether fueled by alcohol, drugs, greed, status chasing, rage etc, has witnessed martial arts techniques in the movies, or in professional fights on the tv. That person may even have trained themselves in a discipline at some time. However, the nature of real violence is such that we should not assume that a previously trained person will engage in a trained attack. Even in the lower pressure of full contact reality based simulations I have watched black belts in traditional martial arts regress to windmilling punches, haymakers and single target focus - in direct contrast to the cherry picking of targets they have displayed in their respective sparring disciplines. As iain noted, we see professional fighters 'regress' when arguments at press conferences touch a nerve too far, and this pattern is repeated among individuals with less training.

This is not to say the 'untrained' do not have strategies, just that they are different strategies than you might find trained in your average martial arts class. Whether it is drawing someone away from their mates (or out of cctv viewing range) with a hug, a beckon, a nod, a question... the verbal or physical distraction for the mate who is about to sucker you in a pincer movement.... the drunken fall and hug while your wallet is lifted, the sheer initimidation of the aggressive shouting, pushing and ferocity of a fully committed attack... following at a distance and picking the right moment to close the difference to barge you into a doorway... asking the question or looking over your shoulder to distract while a weapon is pulled to inimidate etc...

I think it’s insular thinking (perhaps even a tinge of institutional arrogance?) that we martial arts types are prone to thinking that those untrained in what we do are less skilled that us even when we are entering the environment in which they are far more experienced. Criminals and the violent can experience crime and violence on an almost daily basis. The law-abiding and the well-balanced will have nowhere near that level of experience and that always needs to be kept in mind.

Hi all,

As martial Artists we train in a location suited to training the art we practice, we know the training is at best, realistic, but never real.The adrenalin and unsettled emotion we try to induce is an attempt to mirror reality, but its never real. We practice the fence, pre-emption, blitzing, but its only practice, and as such it isn't real.

If the person practicing the drills has little or no knowledge of how a person prone to violence will likely behave then the training becomes a realistic looking drill based on an unrealistic understanding of how violence ensues.

As Iain states, for people who live a life with a tendency for violence then violence, or the real potential for it are a normal daily occurance, it comes with the territory. A word, or a look out of place can escalate in seconds, even amongst supposed allies, so adrenalin, and an unsettled mistrust are normal feelings in that environment. In a previous life this is the type of environment in which I lived.

Those experienced in violent confrontation are also more likely to strike much sooner, this is an important point if you drill some type of fence/ pre-emption, you may find yourself being the one who's pre-empted. That is the curse of the law abiding citizen, you're still trying to make your mind up , he's already punching, his skills are only ever practiced for real, at full intention, his knowledge of that environment and the adrenalin that runs alongside it are well drilled, can most martial artists say the same.

I suppose in summary I would say all we can do, as decent people is push our training as hard as possible, if you scenario train, if you're playing ''the bad guy'' do it right and put your partner under pressure, evaluate your training honestly but realise that with the criminally violent its not so much skill in the physical sense but dirty fighting and intention unhindered by social conditioning that gets the job done

"The assumption that “untrained” = “unskilled” is a very common one in the martial arts world."

Personally, I think that poiint is really important... So called "untrained" attackers may be possessed of very EFFECTIVE aggressive attack patterns.

Another assumption (I would argue) is that "trained" = "skilled"... We HOPE for this as the goal of effective training, but the reality of it is that we see (equally so called) 'trained' martial artists get their clocks cleaned all the time.

"Untrained" can still be 'more violent than you have imagined'.

"Trained" can still be 'ill-prepared'.

To me, combative 'training' itself, is the attempt to tame the tiger-- i.e. it is the attempt to experience a FACSIMILE of the 'real' ['human violence'] in a manner that is as REALISTIC as is SAFELY possible. Combative training itself is therefore inherently UNREAL from the outset. The very idea that you walk into class saying to yourself-- even subconsciously in the back of your mind-- 'These guys aren't really going to hurt me' is the flaw. If you have trained for any length of time, there is (likely) very little REAL 'fear' (or the paralysis there of) to be experienced in training... after all, these are the guys you go out drinking with after class. Maybe some guys get a little competitive, but 'nobody is really out to HURT anybody ON PURPOSE'. **THAT** sportsmanlike assumption-- which I would assert underlies 99.9% of long term training-- is what makes training 'safe' in the first place. There is only the intention to 'be a good partner' on your "attacker's" part. And what does that mean, to be a "good" partner? TO PROVIDE A REALISTIC FACSIMILE. Not to Intentionally hurt, maim, or kill you; nor even the uncaring indifference that a true sociopath would exhibit toward those outcomes.

My personal take is that ANY combative training should necessarily focus first on its context, and secondarily on 'high percentage' probability within that context. So, without reducing the discussion to equatuions, for **self defense** purposes (the context), 'all' training should thoeroetically look first at the statiistical likliihood (which I am here asserting having no means to back this claim up) that a person in a dominance based (Miller) confrontation is 'most likely' to encounter certain basic "Habitual acts of Physical Violence" (McCarthy) which are innate to the species.

Such preparation is (as I was just makling the case in a different thread) entirely a 'predictive' assumption on the part of a person undertaking 'training'-- i.e. we look at the threat context and literally make our 'best guess attempt' at identifying and preparing for what threats we are LIKELY to face. And, in a modern society, this predictive exercise can be taken one step further by looking at not just 'isolated' examples of localized violence with which we might be 'personally' familiar, but doing what (for example) Blauer and his conteporaries do in analyzing recorded footage and statistical evidence of 'real' attacks.

Such an exercise does not provide one with any more of an 'ironclad' guarantee than the former predictive exercise. However, its ASSUMED that with a certain volume of analysis, certain patterns might manifest. Such an exercise is therefore POTENTIALLY more likely to tell you which common attacks are SOMEHWAT MORE 'high percentage' than others... So you can draw CONCLUSIONS ( e.g. 'logical assumptions') like "OK, 80% of these fights started with a right haymaker", which might be true. But that in no case minimizes the fact that 5% ended in chokes, 15% ended in a solid booting, 16.2% ended with a hammer and anvil G&P, and 1.27658289809% ended in a mutual jerk off.... the analysis is itself an attempt at prediction, such that PREPARATION (the theoretical purpose of combative training) can be 'improved' or at least made 'somewhat more efficient'.

So, assume we have adequately prepared for 'any' threat we are 'likely' to face 'on the street'. (The observant will note all three cardinal ASSUMPTIONS which are inherent in that statement.) We next have the original question, which was to the effect of 'Is preparation to face a Choy li fut' practitioner "pragmatic"?' To which, without sarcasm, I would answer: 'I guess that depends if you live in Suburban Wichita or Northern China'. The point being that, in one context such preparation might be deemed 'sensible' on the basis that encountering a phytsical threat from a practitioner profiecient in that system would be 'potentially more likely' (but still not guaranteed) than the other.

Which leads one finally to a discussion of preparing to face a threat who is 'trained' (i.e. 'has obtained some degree of personal proficiency') in... boxing... wrestling... shooto... MMA... ANT (aggressive knot tying... TOX (truly obnoxious xylephopne), or what not. i.e. 'What if I have to fight a person who has also 'prepared' to face violence, but (egads! ) who has prepared in a way that is DIFFERENT from me?

i.e.-- What If the other guy has some kind of killer kung fu 'training', too?!? He might even be trained in Choy Li fut-- which is Mandarin for 'MMA' (I think?) and enough to make a person $hit oneself at the mere mention of the phrase. ... (Trying to be funny, not poke fun at the original question.)

But... 'What if' you DID have to fight a 'trained' boxer...in a mugging? 'What if' you DID have to fight a 'trained' wrestler... in a laundromat? 'What if' you did have to fight zombie Nazi's in a WWII submarine perched atop a waterfall in the middle of an Amazon rainforest? (No really, my kids have a video game in which this is a likely scenario for the operants .)

Again, the observant note the brakceting of the 'what ifs' there.

The point being that 'all' (assertion) training is both 1) highly assumptive and 2) at least attempts to be predictive in nature, typically (we hope) around a SPECIFIC threat context if it is t obe characterized in today's world as 'effective' training.

Therefore, a realistic assessment of the TYPE of violence one is LIKELY to face becomes paramount to what we *MIGHT BEGIN** call 'MORE EFFECTIVE' training... The 'crane technique' may be just what you need v. Choy li fut. And it may get you your A$$ on a platter v. Bas Ruten. Or v. your average doped up street thug.

Everything in 'reactive prediction' 'depends' on the specific input.

Which is where I can agree with the point Zach made initially, above... theoretically, at least, it shouldn't matter what HE is doing, it is more important what WE are doing, which we hope is 'seizing initiative by aggressively attacking' using OUR habituated attacking responses. And, as Zach pointed out, for a self-defense context (and not a Choy Li fut tournament), it shouldn't 'matter' what he does-- our movements should not be predicated on a particular 'stem' or feed from him, nor on the liturgical parameters of a specific system -- IN COMBAT.

**IN TRAINING** however, which regularly attempts to be at least 'somewhat predictive' in nature, its important to experiement with aggressive attacking responses to some degree with the 'what if' scenario's on what I would call a 'decliningly likely basis'.. i.e. pick the 'most likely' threat first, and train to face that. Then the next most likely, etc. And devote maintenance training time accordingly.

One of my favorite sayings from a friend of mine is "there are no silver bullets with martial arts training, only better chances". The definition of "pragmatic" cannot be made without extending the question to ask 'pragmatic for what?', even on the basis that the 'what' of that statemnent is being defined as 'what is most likely'.

During my career to date I have seen video footage of youths practising their techniques, strategies and skills for muggings, so called 'happy slapping', bag snatches and stabbings etc. Which reiterates comments above ie; they may be untrained in conventional martial arts but do not make the mistake that they are unskilled in the matter of violence.

I was thinking about this thread some more this morning vis a vis Iain's Martial Map concept...

Iain's MM is a diagram that theoretically makes room for 'all' martial training perspectives in a non-judgemental way which I believe is useful for quickly illustrating that different contexts require different skills.

So, looking at the concept of the 'trained fighter' only, assume you have 1,000 hypothetical individuals, all of whom have some degree of training in some systemic 'fighting art', or combination of fighting arts...

Each of these 1,000 individuals has a UNIQUE level of interest, ability, talent, dedication, and developed skill, to say nothing of their unique individual physiological attributes (strength, aggression, coordination, reaction time, etc. etc.)

In a word, each of these individuals represents their own **UNIQUE** threat.

So, from a theoretical perspective, as individuals, each of those "trained" persons would occupy a slightly different spot on the map, depending on all of the above.

So, the martial map kind of points us at the 'martial trap'-- the attempt to identify every possible permutation of any potential threat we are likely to face somewhere someplace... i.e., all the 'what if's'.

And, what struck me this morning was that, as a simple graphic, the martial map was also a potentially useful illustration to make the point that attempting to cover 'every' possible threat is a fool's errand.

Our limited training time is therefore better served (I would argue), in 1) getting reeeeeeally good at our own unique territory on the map, and then 2) cross training to develop ways to 'invite' or 'force' people out of their comfort area on the map and into ours.

I never meant to equate "untrained" with "unskilled". Indeed, experience is often the best teacher. I'm sure I'd have one heck of a time defending myself against an attacker who has been in numerous physical altercations and has mugged many people before me. (Given my limited experience in actual combat, I can't say that I am completely confident I would be able to.) For the most part, all of the training I have received involves assuming that the opponent will have some level of competency. All of my instructors encourage me to be mindful of my position in relation to my opponent, in order to minimize the damage he can inflict on me. I, likewise, remind students to always assume that if you give your opponent any type of opportunity to respond, he probably will. Never under estimate your hypothetical attacker. Institutionalized martial arts training is very different than possessing skills for certain violent situations on the street. In fact, I would honestly go as far as saying street violence has created a combative folk discipline, but maybe that's just the social scientist in me....

I want to reshape the question a bit, to clarify what I originally wanted to know. I remember one day sparring, during my brief time with Jeet Kun Do. I already had a number of years of training in Karate. More so than JKD, Karate responses were built into my muscle memory. During this Jeet Kun Do class, I found a lot of success with landing roundhouse and sidekicks to the chest of my opponent. Its not that the other students were unskilled, indeed, most of them were probably more skilled than I was. The issue was that JKD trains kicks that target the legs and the groin. Such kicks are wonderful tools, and nowadays, I certainly rely on them far more than I rely on kicks above the belt, so to speak. However, in this class, when encountering kicks aimed just below their heads, many of the students fumbled, unsure how to respond. Arts like Tae Kwon Do, that train all manner of jumping and spinning kicks, are widely practiced today. I would hope that a student at any martial art school learns self restraint, but with the sheer number of schools out their, the likelihood of a Cobra Kai type institute surely exists. The Grandmaster on the DVD thought it appropriate to discuss responses to a certain punch found in Choy Lee Fut, one that a skilled street fighter (but without any training in Choy Lee Fut) would probably never employ. Do you ever practice responses to attacks that are, for lack of better phrasing, "atypical" for the street? How do you value the prospect of a stylized assailant?

What you are describing just sounds to me like artifacts of sparring in different 'styles'.

To me, there isn't much correlation there with real violence either way, I don't see the point in trying to train against specific 'styles' as even if you were able to successfully do so, there are many styles and you have virtually no chance of predicting what you are going to be attacked with, you need a general-purpose set of tools that are broadly effective, not different responses for every different possibility right?

I think what you CAN safely predict is that whoever is attacking you is in it to put you down, not to exchange techniques with you or show the superiority of what they do, there won't be any "if he does A I do B" type stuff when it hits the fan, from my perspective of course.

Something I find very disturbing, and have for many years, is the myth that I'm a fighter because I do karate, kung-fu, etc, or have a black belt. For those with real world experience, or else accustomed to violence, there's a very big difference in mindset where survival is concerned. For the unexperienced karate-ka (black-belt or not) the idea of a confrontation is one based upon the dojo and its rituals. (Unless the sensei is trying to instill real survival skills.) By contrast the individual who grows up facing violence their responses are more likely to be: "use the maximum amount of force to get me out of harms way", or "use overwhelming force to get/take what I want." Hence the use of weapons and sudden- violent and overwhelming responses/tactics. The longer the fight/engagement the more likely you'll be hurt, therefore prolonged sparring as witnessed on TV and in the dojo is not what you want to prepare for. Training for a fight and being accustomed to real world violence are for me, two different things,although there can be overlapping at times. When training for a fight you want to develop strenght, speed and stamina and good technique. That's the way of the trained fighter. However, as I point out occasionally all it takes is one knife thrust-one bullet, or one brick to the head and all your training goes ot the window. And in the world of the "untrained fighter" who is accustomed to facing violence, the knife, bullet, or brick is their Tao/Way.

And, what struck me this morning was that, as a simple graphic, the martial map was also a potentially useful illustration to make the point that attempting to cover 'every' possible threat is a fool's errand.

Absolutely! It’s impossible to be an expert in everything so we need to acknowledge what area(s) we want to be good at and train accordingly. The trouble is that martial artists are prone to not recognising / acknowledging that there are different kinds of violence / conflict that need to be addressed differently. It is an “inconvenient truth” that forces people to face that fact that all systems have their limitations, that there is no “ultimate system”, and that one size does not fit all. This often leads to the classic martial arts thing of “changing the problem” in order to fit the “pre-existing solution” that one is heavily invested in.

It’s impossible to be trained to address all forms of conflict as that would mean you would need to be an expert in all forms of martial competition, have a full set of body-guarding skills (evasive driving, shooting skills, etc), be able to perform prison cell extractions, be able to secure a building, know how to deal with bombs, know how to use a broadsword, accurately fire a medieval longbow, etc, etc. These are all things that people may study for interest or for their profession, but no one person can cover all areas of the martial map; which is why I feel it is so important to know where we are on that map at any given time.

Well, I thought of this thread again this weekend while watching a DVD of silat drills. The auther was talkinga bout how they train both sides of the body (Right and left) "assymetrically" as oppposed to mirror image. And, in addition to several other justifying rationales, he then went on to elaborate how ubiquious the left jab is and how THAT Method of training is effective against the left jab.

My immediate thought (the one after: 'Is a jab realy a street attack?!?') was: "Wait a minute! What if I have to fight a left handed boxer?"

Point being (again) that training theories, drills and even specific tactics which are dependent IN FIGHTING on given feeds from the threat are destined to fail if you fight enough people.

Point being (again) that training theories, drills and even specific tactics which are dependent IN FIGHTING on given feeds from the threat are destined to fail if you fight enough people.

Absolutely. When taking this back to the physical side of self-protection, this is why I feel we need to work within the probable scenarios (as opposed to the extremely unlikely but “possible”) and ensure we always do our utmost to avoid the physical through training and education in the non-physical sides of self-protection; so that we don’t run the statistical odds of one day finding the exception to the rule (if we don’t end up dead or in prison first!). That way we spend valuable training time on the “likely”; as opposed not having as much ability with regards to the likely because we wasted training time on the “highly unlikely but theoretically possible”.

Letting my inner nerd out now...this video captures the topic very well. Here we have a knight in a duel with a commoner. http://youtu.be/NN30YMzja6Y

Any martial arts school, aside from the decorations on the wall, is going to look pretty much like any other martial arts school, a big open floor, mostly free from clutter. The classes will be pretty similar; repeated practice of techniques from the style or system. Whether this practice will be in the form of kata or partner drills makes little difference in what we are seeing. The bottom line of this point is that the situation will not be chaotic. You will know what you are working on, and you will know you are safe. Even in sparring, where you may not know the actual technique your opponent will be using, you do know that it will fall within the construct of a known set of particular rules. These rules are necessary (no matter how much this is downplayed) to ensure the safety of the participants. Over time you will develop a certain mindset regarding the training. You will not have to think about the rules, legal targets and techniques and so on. It will become a habitual act to follow these rules, and free the mind for the creation of strategy.

But here is where we fool ourselves.

We think that this training is for the real thing. It could not really be much further from the real thing, but we turn a blind eye to this fact and press on and convince ourselves that we are in fact training for the ultimate street fight. We know that whenever the day comes that an untrained street fighter is dumb enough to attack our well trained self, we will defeat them while dazzling the onlookers and bystanders with our prowess.

Now let us take a look at these untrained street fighters. Street punks have more than likely spent their entire life in or near violence. In the real world, there are gangs and fights every day. When kids in these neighborhoods grow up like this they are quite likely to have a much more clear understanding and much more intimate knowledge of violence than any martial arts student ever will. The fights these kids grow up having as a part of their life are not pretty, but they are violent. Proper technique and sound strategy are not to be found.

What comes to mind for me is a scene from “A Game of Thrones” wherein Ser Vardis Egan is in a fight to the death with a common sellsword named Bronn. Here is a look at it:

In the scene, the knight is well trained, and much better armed and armored. Bronn does not fight a clean or pretty fight, but he uses experience and “street smarts” to kill Vardis. I know it is not much to add, as everything has been well said above, but that is my take.

I would venture to suggest the average street rat isn't hampered by a lack of confidence ...

So I feel we shouldn't overcomplicate things (in training) as complexity can introduce doubt. Keeping things simple and building impact enhances confidence. Is that enough? No one knows until they're tested but I'm convinced it's better than trying to have an answer for everything.